RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD Vs. BANARSI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition has been filed under Sec. 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the 'Act') against State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, ('State Commission') Order dtd. 5/12/2018 in FA No. 414 of 2015. In the impugned Order, the State Commission dismissed the Appeal of the OP while upholding the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur. ('District Forum') order dtd. 9/3/2015 in CC No. 1616 of 2012.

(2.) For the convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.

(3.) Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant, are that Janki Devi's late husband, Hardeva Ram, deposited Rs.3,000.00 with OPs and applied for a house under General Registration Scheme in Sikar as was issued receipt No. 1370 dtd. 28/11/1984. Later, her husband was allotted House No. 1/81 in Sikar Residential Scheme. After adjustments, Rs.57,550.00 remained outstanding, to be paid in 156 instalments @ Rs.341.00 PM. It is the complainant's case that despite additional payment of Rs.6,813.00, OPs neither handed over the house's nor refunded the deposit. Repeated requests by them were ignored, constituting deficiency in service. Following her husband's demise, she made multiple requests to OPs for handing over possession of the house. Although the house was transferred to her name later, after completing the required formalities its physical possession had still not been given. On 17/1/2008, OPs forwarded a cheque for Rs.10,747.00 which was returned by her son to Resident Engineer in Jhunjhunu, as the amount was calculated after a wrongful deduction of 20% from the deposit initially paid. Despite passing of 25 years, OPs failed to provide the house or refund the deposit timely, amounting to gross deficiency in service. She sought directions to OPs to deliver possession of house No. 1/81 or, if not available, a similar plot at original rate, along with compensation and costs.